Israeli Ambassador Rejects American Jews, Embraces Hagee, Christian Zionists

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2009/10/16/152246/04


Michael Oren, the Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., is apparently rejecting the invitation by J Street for their upcoming conference. It should be shocking that the ambassador would reject the invitation to speak to a conference of American Jews coming together in support of Israel, particularly since he was quite willing to speak to John Hagee's Christians United for Israel this past July, a few months after being named as ambassador. Oren's excuse for snubbing J Street is that the organization could "impair Israeli interests."

In the strange world of today's interpretation of pro-Israel politics, those of us who are "liberal Jews" are now considered more of a threat to Israel's future than the Christian Zionists who have fantasized about the destruction of Judaism for generations. One can assume that Ambassador Oren does not view Hagee's CUFI as impairing Israel's interests. The tunnel vision and shortsighted preference for the embrace of millennial zealots over the support of those who have a vested interest in preserving the humanity of Jews and the perpetuation of Judaism, is tragic, and not just for Israel.

Who is really impairing the interests of Israel?

-long snip-
--------------------------


shining the light

of all Jews, except those who convert to Christ and choose to fight the last battle of Armageddon against the Anti-Christ and the forces of Gog and Magog. (Read it in the new, de-liberalized Revelation of Saint John, as translated from the King James Version into Racist Conservative English.)

Bibi always did hang with an odd, religious crowd of politicians. ("Eye of Newt" Gringritch was has favorite poltician back in the day when he was destroying every attempt to find peace between Israeli's and Palestinians.)

this one takes the cake

If not, then it's hardly comparable. If so, then perhaps New York also needs a new pair of liberal senators, though it's fortunately not up to me, we have enough trouble here with our own elected officials.

rather than as a sad indication that a right-wing lobby group has an strange power over two politicians who are otherwise liberal.

Hass, Avnery, Phillip Weiss, etc.

The views of J-Street are closer to the latter than the former.

RW lobbying has zero to do with it.

Also (and I speak as someone who is certainly hard-left within the spectrum of Zionists/Israelis - and pretty left within my own country's spectrum as well), I think that there is a pretty imperfect correlation between general leftism and attitudes to Israel.

I would not consider Phil Weiss as left-wing at all. My problem with him is that he's too right-wing, not too left-wing. Anyone who is associated with American Conservative has no right to be called left-wing or even liberal.

1. facts are compromised in favor of certain narratives and arguments based entirely on emotion
2. sharp, accurate analysis is ignored if it's considered partisan (ex. "I don't need to listen to this b/c it sounds RW"). This is juvenile.
3. hard leftists on I/P issues are impervious to facts that prove their 'religous' viewpoints to be false

I personally find the liberal view more intellectual, honest, and accurate than what Carlo Strenger labels the self-righteous-left's simplistic worldview on all that's I/P related.

Left-wingers, liberals, centrists and right-wingers can all have strongly emotional commitment to their viewpoints. Often people are prepared only to consider arguments and even facts in favour of the viewpoints that they support. Some people won't consider any pro-Israel arguments or even reports as valid, and at the extreme may consider that anyone who presents them must be being paid to do so. Some people won't consider any pro-Palestinian arguments or even reports as valid, and at the extreme may consider that anyone who presents them must be a supporter of terrorism.

And everyone probably considers the others to be wrong and biased if not self-righteous. I do think that you are biased toward Israel, and some other people on the forum are biased toward Palestine. And you probably *all* think that *I* am biased because I firmly believe that right-wing arguments, whether from people who ar pro-Israel, pro-Palestinian, pro-British, pro-American, or pro-Jupiter, never have ANY validity (not quite the same as saying that no argument expressed by a right-winger can have any validity). I am not biased, of course; because obviously I am *right* and the Right is always wrong - but then everybody else no doubt thinks that *they* are right, and those who disagree with them are the ones who are biased!

To make a slightly less tongue-in-cheek point: in my perception, Carlo Strenger is a left-winger criticizing certain self-righteous attitudes by a portion of the left; not a moderate attacking the left as a whole as self-righteous.

It's a pretty screwed up perspective that labels moderate groups like J-Street as being 'hard left' and warmongers like AIPAC and Nutty and his gang as 'liberal', which are claims I've seen made in this forum before. I think it's better to describe J-Street as being dovish, while groups that are supported by some here like AIPAC are hawkish...

...them hard-left.

They haven't issued or written one critical word against Goldstone's Report.

Is it really too much to expect J-Street to have anything critical to say about the Report? Just one thing?

They do not represent the general opinions of Israel's left.

The question is whether rational folk do the same, which is highly doubtful.

i understand wanting to 'criticize' Israel...but at the expense of doing whatever possible to minimize or ignore Hamas human rights violations?

that's not dovish.

how does ignoring and minimizing Hamas crimes while irrationally criticizing Israel advance the cause of peace and human rights?

Or why you think I'd give a shit what rabid zealots who act as though any criticism of Israel is minimising human rights violations by Hamas think. Unlike you and other hawkish types, people who are doves don't ignore human rights violations by Israel or Palestinian groups...

Also, it does look like yr attempting to make out that J Street support Hamas. If so, that's a blatantly false accusation and all it takes is a quick look at the J Street site to see any claims like that are very dishonest ones intended to smear the group because they're not hawkish conservative types...

...even to the extent that Goldstone never once singled out and condemned Hamas for anything leading up to and during OCL.

HRW is fully behind all 500 pages of this 'dovish' tripe (it's anything but dovish) that irrationally demonizes Israel while ignoring Hamas HR violations. They have to be behind it, as Goldstone virtually cut-and-pasted much of their material.

J-Street has yet to voice any criticism whatsoever against the moral atrocity that is the Goldstone Report.

So here we have an organization or two that never fails to criticize Israel for real or imagined crimes, but takes it very easy on Hamas...essentially covering Hamas' ass by ignoring or minimizing major HR violations they carry out against both Israelis and Palestinians. Whether that's "support" for Hamas or not, it's morally perverted.

No dovish types interested in peace and human rights should hesitate to condemn Hamas in the harshest of terms for any and every thing Hamas does that's destructive to the causes of peace and human rights. To not condemn Hamas for what they intentionally do to others is to condone Hamas actions and tacitly approve of them.

That's not dovish.

Anyone who doesn't find fault with Goldstone after reading his report as well as reading the criticisms of it cannot be considered dovish.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but J-Street has no issues with the Goldstone Report. HRW doesn't have a problem with it. How can dovish people not have a problem with it?

Do you have a problem with it?

They're not. Also, you keep on pretending that I haven't said several times now that I don't give a shit what rabid zealots who act as though any criticism of Israel = support of Hamas thinks is dovish or not...

J-Street do NOT support Hamas, and all it takes is a quick look at their site to see that anyone claiming otherwise is abjectly dishonest and ignoring the FACT that they condemn Hamas...

...to hate, etc...

Let's see it.

Before I leave you to yr own devices where you feverishly reply to yr own posts, I just want to point out the bleeding obvious yet again. J Street are very clear in their condemnation of Hamas and it's right there on their website. If you want to ignore it in favour of continuing with what is a very dishonest accusation, I can't drag you to the website by the scruff of yr neck and force you to read. Likewise, it'll take someone with far more patience than me to sit there and explain to you why yr opinions aren't facts. And to also point out that disagreeing with yr very extreme stances is not abuse....

that's not on the J-Street website.

are we to pretend that doesn't happen and that dovish types for peace and human rights have good reasons to ignore all that?

He's showing his true colours now, that's all...

Are they really reduced to this sort of grabbing at straws?

It is AIPAC's policy not to give money directly, only to ID for its backers the names of those politicians which support its objectives and those which do not, and encourage support (financial and otherwise) of the first and trashing/defeating the others.

If I am wrong, and you are truly as naive and ignorant as your post, if an honest one, would suggest, just use Wikipedia as a starting point and check further by reading the source material: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States

(edit tiny typo)

And you may want to avoid sources that exaggerate the "power" of AIPAC into something ridiculous and mythical.

Anyone who thinks Chuck Schumer would somehow lose his Senate seat via the actions of AIPAC for attending this J Street conference is living in an alternate reality.

As you are generally quick to point out with regard to Israelis who are too RW!

I am pro-J-Street, and would be a member if they accepted non-Americans; but people, who disagree with me on this or other issues, sometimes just disagree with me; they aren't necessarily paid or pressured to do so.

They all represent(ed) a certain segment of the population. Not all of it, but enough to get elected by a certain constituency.

within the Jewish community. Politicians in states like NY and NJ have always felt they had to "toe the line."

J Street is re-shaping what that line is. Surely you agree with that notion.

The bottom line is that these senators apparently haven't "gotten the memo" so to speak. I look forward to the evolution of their positions!

J Street has made significant headway in under one year. Soon elected reps will understand that the AIPAC/hardline position really does not reflect the view of all Americans, or of all American Jews.

If Oren was selected for his ability to be a total moron, then they've picked the right guy, and one that represents the govt of Israel very well. Probably not a wise move on his part to make out that American Jews who aren't hawkish supporters of a very RW government are 'anti-Israel'...

Nutty's so bad for Israel, and unfortunately it doesn't look like that government is going to vanish anytime soon...

A famous Polish anti-semite is embraced because he now backs Israel -- totally bonkers, really, but that's how it is.

<snip>

"The Embassy of Israel in the United States on Tuesday announced that it would send an "observer" to the left-leaning lobby group J Street's first national conference next week, in place of Ambassador Michael Oren.

"In response to the question about J Street's invitation to participate in its conference, the Embassy of Israel has been privately communicating its concerns over certain policies of the organization that may impair the interests of Israel," the embassy said in a statement.

"Accordingly, the embassy will send an observer to the conference and will follow its proceedings with interest."

J Street responded to the statement by saying it was still awaiting a direct response from Oren on the matter.

"J Street still looks forward to receiving a direct response from Ambassador Oren to our invitation to speak at the conference," spokeswoman Amy Spitalnick.

"We believe the Government of Israel will be missing an opportunity should it choose not to engage with the over 1,200 pro-Israel activists who will be in attendance at the J Street conference next week," she added.

"The invitation to address the conference's participants remains open, and we look forward to working with the Embassy to secure Israel's future as a democratic homeland for the Jewish people."

more

The Obama administration appears to be welcoming the efforts of the left-leaning Jewish lobby in Washington, J Street.

While Israel's ambassador to the U.S. will probably not be attending the group's October 25 conference, senior U.S. administration officials who have confirmed their participation include James Jones, national security adviser in the Obama administration.

J Street was set up more than two years ago to offer an antidote to the large and powerful America Israel Public Affairs Committee. AIPAC enjoys substantial support in both the Democratic and Republican parties and is identified with a more "rightist" line on the peace process. J Street defines itself as being "for Israel and for the peace process."

Senior members of J Street have had close ties to senior figures in the Obama campaign, and since he was elected, they have been consulted by the administration. When President Obama met with the heads of Jewish organizations in the U.S., representatives of J Street were also invited.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1121716.html

J-Street supports Israel's interests, but it's unambgiously at odds with Israel's government.

That puts it and Oren - or any other Israeli ambassador - effectively on opposite sides.